brvheart, on Friday, December 16th, 2011, 10:26 PM, said:
You stated Ron Paul's motivations, based on nothing, and then attacked the shit out of them.Ron Paul's hatred of the fed is a lot broader than just the fact that they aren't elected. I mean, he wrote an entire book on the subject, and I'm pretty sure page one didn't say, "because they aren't elected", followed by a bunch of blank pages.
Fine. It's certainly a major problem of his, though, yes, that he believes it's unconstitutional? We can agree on this?His other issues (none of which you've actually mentioned or thought to bring into any kind of discussion) include:1. Inflation and 'debasing' of the currency are disastrous for the economy
If the last 100 years of the U.S. economy, i.e. the broadest expansion of growth and employment in the history of the world resulting in the unquestionable global economic dominance of our country = disaster one really must wonder what results Ron Paul seeks to achieve. Do you agree with him that the U.S. economy since the creation of the Fed has been a disaster? Or do you think it's something that's still coming and we have to wait another hundred years or so? I'm never sure. Also, fiscal policy plays a major role in the nation's balance sheet and therefore the standing of the dollar vs. other global currencies. The Fed has nothing to do with that.2. War artificially inflates the economy like a sugar high
Fine, but since when does the Fed have control of the nation's war powers? Maybe I missed something; it happens occasionally.3. The 'Philosophical' Case for ending the Fed
I quote, at length:"The moral argument against the Fed should be simple, and it would be in a moral society.
(p.149) "Congress though, is a reflection of the people. If the problem were seen as a moral problem and people were to demand morality in money from their representatives in government, the process would end. But the people endorse the system because they have requested and expect government to provide benefits that can’t be provided any other way.
(p.150) "When times are good and the benefits are being enjoyed, no one is much interested in breaking up the party or worrying about morality in money. The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt. People live beyond their means with the help of an expansionist monetary policy. They trade their futures for the present, neglecting the need to save in order to spend more and more. In this sense the Fed is the ultimate promoter of consumerism and living for the present. This amounts to a terrible cultural distortion in which short-term thinking wins out over long-term planing.
" (p. 151)So this is a lot of what my "STRAWMAN" was referencing, i.e. "Congress, though, is a reflection of the people...." So, you know, EXACTLY what I was talking about. Reference my earlier "STRAWMAN" post for discussion of this 'point'."The Fed encourages irresponsible accumulation of personal debt."Why? How? Because Ron Paul says they do? This is as specious an argument as I have ever seen. The Fed in no way whatsoever concerns themselves with the personal spending habits of the American consumer. Blaming the Fed for the culture of consumerism in this country is PATENTLY ABSURD BOOGEYMANism. There's no proof, there's no way to quantify what he's saying. It's his personal opinion which has no basis in reality. HIS PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY does not gel with the notion of a group of experts controlling the nation's money supply. THIS DOES NOT MEAN IT IS AN INHERENTLY FLAWED SYSTEM. The mind of Ron Paul is not an absolute arbiter or what is and what is not correct. His argument for ending the Fed is essentially: I DON'T LIKE IT. Congrats. The expansion of the economy in the hundred years since the Fed's creation disagrees with you.4. Monetary policy was accommodative for too long, resulting in the real estate and credit bubbles of the mid 2000s
The steep rise in housing prices relative to personal income should have been a major red flag to all economists that the growth of the housing market was unsustainable. I don't disagree with this. I would, however, argue that monetary policy had less to do with it than the Ron Pauls of the world would lead people to believe. What had much more to do with it was the nonregulation of mortgage lending, i.e. subprime mortgages were created en masse with no lender taking responsibility for any of the loans, but instead bundling them up, taking their cut and passing them off to investors. The Fed does not regulate commerce. Congress is supposed to do that.5. The Fed creates boom and bust cycles and eliminating the Fed would end these cycles
This another great one where you are asked to not look at history but merely trust in Ron Paul that it is so. The U.S. in the 1800s (especially late-1800s) experienced MASSIVE shocks of deflation and inflation. Prices of goods were actually LOWER in 1914 than they were in 1814 due to the money supply being limited to the physical supply of gold. THAT RON PAUL WISHES TO RETURN TO THIS SCENARIO IS TOTALLY INSANE LUDDITEism. Economic growth was artificially and painfully limited due to a currency which was pegged to the supply of a useless, arbitrary metal. The population continued to grow and the money supply did not increase along with it, limiting growth and creating deflationary spirals. Since the creation of the Fed we've had two major contractions, both caused by credit bubbles. The Fed's role in each is complex and not easily distilled into sound-bites (though more clear in the Great Depression, when monetary policy was too easy for too long in the 20s and then far too tight throughout the 30s), but OVERALL the economy has been MUCH more stable and as mentioned before, has expanded at a rate which is unprecedented in history.Ron Paul is a demagogue who has been predicting impending doom consistently and has been proven consistently wrong. When things are particularly bleak economically some of what he says begins to sound appealing to a wider mass audience because they're looking for a scapegoat to blame for their troubles and Ron Paul likes blaming a lot of people for a lot of things. It doesn't make his positions any more valid than they are when things are good.If this is seen as trolling, please forgive; it is not meant as such. If you think I'm off base tell me why.